Posted on 03/14/2005 12:16:45 PM PST by Dont Mention the War
I will summarize your points if I may, and please correct me if I misstate them. Basically, your argument is that marriage, as defined as one man marrying one woman, is protected in order to promote propagation. Deriving from this desire on the part of the state would be the civil benefits that are conferred upon married couples.
My response is that I believe this to be outdated and based upon antiquated ideas of human sexuality. I cannot fathom being sexually involved with a man, and I believe that this holds true for most, (if not all), straight men. The benefits conferred by the state in no way influenced me to seek out, fall in love with, and marry a woman. If your suggestion is that marriage benefits are the only thing keeping men straight, then I think you are off the mark a bit. Heterosexual men and women will continue to be together regardless of whether or not marriage exists. Now I agree with you that the institution of heterosexual marriage is the ideal environment in which to beget and raise children, and that the civil benefits of marriage promote this behavior. However, in what way would the existence of homosexual civil unions diminish this trend among the populace?
Couples get together because of the biology of sexual attraction, whether or not they are "wired correctly" (and yes, I do believe that homosexuals are somehow "miswired"). The state does have a valid interest in promoting a long-term, stable relationship. Children are certainly at the forefront of the benefits to the state. But they aren't the only one. If so, we could justify outlawing all new marriages where one of the partners were unable to contribute to the propagation of the species. There are other benefits to society begot by long term stable relationships as well.
And as for your statement that homosexual relationships are only about sex, I would respectfully suggest that you are woefully off the mark. One of my family members mentioned earlier was in a committed, loving, relationship when their partner was killed in an automobile accident. They had a house (and mortgage) together, two joint car loans, and a life full of love and memories. The partners family was against their lifestyle and didn't honor the relationship at all. As a result, not only was one life lost, another life was ruined financially and suffered much more emotionally than was necessary. I think that it is more than just about sex. And civil unions would discourage the casual sex in any case.
It is an issue of the authority to make law. We do not live in Plato's Republic, so we do not have a class of Guardians whose job it is to make law without our consent.
The courts have no right to change the fundamental meanings of statutes or the Constitution.
When they do so, they are making law without my consent, for which, IMHO, they should hang.
Virginia makes even private contracts between gays for marriage-like arrangements void.
That may be the case in Ohio too (although we don't have any court rulings on this yet). The language of the state constitutional amendment 'we the people' passed last November forbids the state to recognize not only same-sex civil unions, but any legal relationship intended to approximate or simulate such a union.
The courts have no right to change the fundamental meanings of statutes or the Constitution.
They do, however, have the responsibility to exercise judicial review.
When they do so, they are making law without my consent, for which, IMHO, they should hang.
Striking down a law as unconstitutional is not the same thing as making a new law. At any rate, the protection of liberty does not require your 'consent'. This is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
A lowly city/county judge? His ruling will most definately be overturned as it moves higher up the chain.
It just goes to show that the will of the people can be shot down by the courts. It's no longer, "For the People, by the People" it's more like "For the People, By the Courts!"
Homosexual behavior has zero chance of producing or raising a next generation in a mother/father environment.
I disagree. Stable families and households all contribute to the raising of the next generation whether the children live in those households or not.
On the issue of marriage and procreation, I agree with SilentServiceCPO's post.
FWIW, I don't claim to "recognize" every heterosexual mariage that takes place, however I do recognize, as do most Americans the institution of mariage, and its definition, as being ONE man and ONE woman.
"Fond" term for the most overturned circuit court in the country.
Form a corporation.
the presumed right (in the absence of a power of attorney) to make medical decisions,
So sign a power of attorney already.
the presumed right of inheritance,
Draw up a will.
It's far better for a state judge to rule his own state constitution than to have a federal judge, perhaps located in another state, to rule on provision of your state constitution.
I haven't read the ruling yet, so I'm not even sure what happened. The snippet I heard on the news coming home from work was not very enlightening.
Please. Laws that apply to mutually consenting adults are never assumed to apply to a consenting adult and a child, and there's nothing in this ruling that would make this happen. That, after all, is the premise behind statuatory rape--that people younger than the age of consent are incapable of giving consent, that is, that their consent is irrelevent.
The slippery slope argument does not pertain.
Exactly right. Similar limitations -- having to do not with the definition of marriage but with the competence to enter into contracts at all -- will continue to make it impossible to 'marry' pets and dead people.
Thanks, nyg.
Just a place for 'mooning'. I suppose a Muslim might pray in their if it was sunset.
I do recognize, as do most Americans the institution of mariage, and its definition, as being ONE man and ONE woman.
And neither you nor 'most Americans' need to alter your opinion one whit, under this ruling or under any other that I would approve. If you don't approve of same-sex marriages, don't recognize them. Just don't make it legally impossible for anyone to recognize them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.